• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Victimless Crimes

DebateChallenge said:
Should victimless crimes in fact be crimes? Should laws that prohibit victimless crimes be enforced? Should we even have laws against victimless crimes?
Click to expand...

IMO there is no such thing as a 'victimless crime'. Something is either a crime or it isn't. And it is only a crime if it presents a threat or harm to somebody else or has an unreasonable potential to do that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We had taxes long before the 16A - what we did not have is the ability for the federal government to tax income from all sources disproportionately (progressively?) and 80K pages of deductions, credits, exclusions and "special" accounting methods (to use federal taxation as a social engineering device).
Click to expand...

Something people scream about when corporations pay reduced taxes by doing all the "right" things tax breaks encourage.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yep./.
Click to expand...

So carrying a loaded handgun anywhere I want shouldn't be a crime, as long as Im not shooting innocent people, since just by carrying it in and of itself there are no victims.

Prostitution shouldn't be a crime as long as its consensual since the only difference between prostitution and other consensual sex is that money is willingly exchanged, so there are no victims from that either.
 
Fledermaus said:
Something people scream about when corporations pay reduced taxes by doing all the "right" things tax breaks encourage.
Click to expand...

They scream even louder when corporations demand representation - how dare a taxpayer do that when this country was founded on having taxation without representation? ;)
 
DebateChallenge said:
So carrying a loaded handgun anywhere I want shouldn't be a crime, as long as Im not shooting innocent people, since just by carrying it in and of itself there are no victims.
Click to expand...

Carrying a gun can cause panic though, in today's age, at least. People fearful for their lives are victims.

Prostitution shouldn't be a crime as long as its consensual since the only difference between prostitution and other consensual sex is that money is willingly exchanged, so there are no victims from that either.
Click to expand...

Yep...
 
Captain Adverse said:
Victimless crimes are created by laws designed to prevent possible harms, or enforce moral codes. They include individual activities and consensual activities where there is no actual victim. However, the potential for harms (moral or actual) is considered sufficient cause to punish.

The short list includes:

Drug use.

Drunk driving.

Driving without seat belts, baby seats, required insurance coverage, license, registration, license plates.

Prostitution.

"Deviant" sexual behaviors.

Trespassing.

Smuggling.

Speeding.

Arms trafficking.

and so on.
Click to expand...

A lot of those are not victimless.
 
Perotista said:
There are certain drugs in my opinion that needs to be illegal. If for no other reason to save an individual from himself. There are other drugs that probably should be made legal. Prostitution, there I agree. It should be legal.
Click to expand...

If the legal status of a drug were determined by its toxicity, one of the first to go on the list would be aspirin. Though not a drug, the next on the list would be automobiles and motorcycles.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Prostitution laws should be revoked. Its legal for consenting adults to have sex, it shouldn't all of a sudden become illegal just because money happens to be exchanged.

Drug laws, it could be argued that when a person is high they're a danger to society so therefore drug crimes are not victimless.
Click to expand...

That might be argued, but it cannot be proved. Reality is that the effects of most illegal drugs are so subtle that the only way to detect their presence is to examine one's urine or hair.
 
Mason66 said:
What drug laws are victimless?
Click to expand...

All of them.

May I ask a rhetorical question?

Who is the victim when I smoke pot or snort cocaine?

If I harm another when under their influence, I should be charged with harming another, not with using a drug.

If I harm another, what matters is the harm done. Whether I am drunk or sober does not matter. The harm done is what matters.
 
Thoreau72 said:
If the legal status of a drug were determined by its toxicity, one of the first to go on the list would be aspirin. Though not a drug, the next on the list would be automobiles and motorcycles.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a lot of this should be based on the reward vs. the risk. The people wouldn't stand for taking automobiles or motorcycles away from them no matter how many people die in traffic accidents.
 
Perotista said:
Perhaps a lot of this should be based on the reward vs. the risk. The people wouldn't stand for taking automobiles or motorcycles away from them no matter how many people die in traffic accidents.
Click to expand...

I think it should be based on the intelligent use of the rule of law, in particular the US Constitution and the role of limited government in society. :peace
 
Thoreau72 said:
All of them.

May I ask a rhetorical question?

Who is the victim when I smoke pot or snort cocaine?

If I harm another when under their influence, I should be charged with harming another, not with using a drug.

If I harm another, what matters is the harm done. Whether I am drunk or sober does not matter. The harm done is what matters.
Click to expand...

What about the dead people all along the chain of supply? Do they not count for anything?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Carrying a gun can cause panic though, in today's age, at least. People fearful for their lives are victims.
Click to expand...

Such people must be fearful and must panic whenever they see a police officer, since police officers in the USA routinely carry guns.
 
Thoreau72 said:
That might be argued, but it cannot be proved. Reality is that the effects of most illegal drugs are so subtle that the only way to detect their presence is to examine one's urine or hair.
Click to expand...
Right, well that is a whole nother topic of discussion which probably is better to be discussed in the war on drugs folder. As for me, I don't care for illegal drugs, I don't use them and I don't recommend them so this doesn't really concern me.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Right, well that is a whole nother topic of discussion which probably is better to be discussed in the war on drugs folder. As for me, I don't care for illegal drugs, I don't use them and I don't recommend them so this doesn't really concern me.
Click to expand...

Indeed, one will never hear that point made on the mainstream media. They will not discuss victimless crimes in general, or the impact of the drug prohibition on the non-using part of society.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The term "victimless crimes" is basically a legal sophistry, an oxymoron.

But without them our Bureau of Prisons employees would not be needed, and our cops would have many fewer people to harass and arrest. Fewer prosecutors would be needed, and probably fewer government employees of all types.

For the government bureaucrat, victimless crimes are like the Goose That Lays Golden Eggs. They will be protected by the status quo.
Click to expand...

We could put people in prison who really belong there, people who steal, rape, murder, ect. and keep them there. We would be able to do that, and have room for them, if we stop punishing people for committing "victimless crimes."
 
DebateChallenge said:
We could put people in prison who really belong there, people who steal, rape, murder, ect. and keep them there. We would be able to do that, and have room for them, if we stop punishing people for committing "victimless crimes."
Click to expand...

Yes, the criminal sanction is not always the proper response. I agree with your point, but question what you mean exactly by "keep them there" by asking "how long?"

The criminal sanction and prison must be used wisely. Life sentences, if that's what you're suggesting, is cruel and inhumane, forbidden with good cause by the 8th Amendment. The death sentence would be more humane than life in prison, and less expensive.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, the criminal sanction is not always the proper response. I agree with your point, but question what you mean exactly by "keep them there" by asking "how long?"

The criminal sanction and prison must be used wisely. Life sentences, if that's what you're suggesting, is cruel and inhumane, forbidden with good cause by the 8th Amendment. The death sentence would be more humane than life in prison, and less expensive.
Click to expand...
Im not sure if the death sentence would be less expensive, there are all sorts of really high court costs involved. My main gripe with the death penalty is the innocent people who are wrongfully executed, its not fair to them to have the death penalty. Rape and murder should definitely come with life sentences. Robbery should be a long sentence as well, maybe 20 years or so. We have too many repeat offenders.
 
DebateChallenge said:
A victimless crime is "an illegal act that typically either directly involves only the perpetrator or occurs between consenting adults; because it is consensual in nature, there is arguably no true victim, i.e. aggrieved party."
Click to expand...

If that's a quote from someone besides you, it should probably be sourced.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Im not sure if the death sentence would be less expensive, there are all sorts of really high court costs involved. My main gripe with the death penalty is the innocent people who are wrongfully executed, its not fair to them to have the death penalty. Rape and murder should definitely come with life sentences. Robbery should be a long sentence as well, maybe 20 years or so. We have too many repeat offenders.
Click to expand...

In a country where the government kills innocents all over the globe with drones, in a country where perjury by high public officials on TV is never punished, you think implementing the DP would be too expensive?

Does not compute.

I say no matter the cost, it is more humane to send a soul to the next level than to keep him in prison for life.
 
Thoreau72 said:
In a country where the government kills innocents all over the globe with drones, in a country where perjury by high public officials on TV is never punished, you think implementing the DP would be too expensive?

Does not compute.

I say no matter the cost, it is more humane to send a soul to the next level than to keep him in prison for life.
Click to expand...

Well we sure do spend too much putting people in prison for victimless crimes. As such activities that are deemed victimless crimes should be decriminalized. There is no reason, nor is their justification, in making laws that prohibit actions that don't have victims.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Should victimless crimes in fact be crimes? Should laws that prohibit victimless crimes be enforced? Should we even have laws against victimless crimes?
Click to expand...


What could be examples of such crimes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom